Mexico and Venezuela

[Skirmisher]

I can certainly see your perspective on this. But I think, why tear up a completed offical OOB just to create a country with a handfull of units? Yes Green is offical but it's also a general OOB. And as Don and Andy have stated many times, OOB work is never done.
The only benifet I can see is your way you'd get the offical flag for that nation. I'm not big on picklists as I usually purchase for the AI.

When I play the AI I take an inferior army and let the AI have a superior one. Also giving the AI much more to spend of course.

[thatguy96]

Skirmisher said:
I can certainly see your perspective on this. But I think, why tear up a completed offical OOB just to create a country with a handfull of units? Yes Green is offical but it's also a general OOB. And as Don and Andy have stated many times, OOB work is never done.

I'm not tearing up anything. I create the OOBs from scratch. I build in OOB 93 and then select an appropriate OOB to replace when the basic construction is complete. OOB work is never done, but for countries like the Dominican Republic and Haiti its pretty close at the first go. Laos to 1975 is also not going to change. I have continually be updating the Philippine OOB as more information becomes available. Will they ever be done 100%? Of course not. That's why its my hobby hehe.

Also, why create a country with only a handful of units? I think you can ask the same question of why the official game includes Uruguay, Paraguay, El Salavador and others.

Skirmisher said:
The only benifet I can see is your way you'd get the offical flag for that nation. I'm not big on picklists as I usually purchase for the AI.

You also get a historically accurate OOB, instead of trying to pick and choose "what's closest" out of the Green OOB. That you're not a fan of the picklists doesn't meant they're not useful to others too.

I think the bottom line is, when I get around to it and release a Mexican OOB with picklist, you're perfectly welcome to continue using the Green OOB instead.

[Skirmisher]

Actually I dont bother using it now, so thanks anyways.

The bottom line really is Mexico isnt worth doing as they dont even have a military. I mean drug dealers are giving them all they can handle.
And Haiti? lol

And one more thing, how can you be 100% sure that everything your doing is historically accurate? As your doing things from various information sources and you weren't historically present?

[thatguy96]

Skirmisher said:
Actually I dont bother using it now, so thanks anyways.

So why are you bothering to post in this thread? For the sake of argument?

The bottom line really is Mexico isnt worth doing as they dont even have a military. I mean drug dealers are giving them all they can handle.
And Haiti? lol

Haiti post-1994 perhaps, but Mexico has as much of military as Uruguay and El Salvador and they're included in the official game. I think you commentary on the Mexican military shows a distinct lack of understanding, as does the comment made by the other poster that the Mexican military is basically just a heavily armed internal security force. That the Mexican military has only been used to put down internal unrest since the Second World War, does not mean that it would be limited to that capacity should a traditional conflict break out.

Again, look at El Salvador (just one example likely of many), included in the stock game, which fought one war between 1945 and 1990, with a country not even included in the game. That conflict with Honduras was measured in days. Their forces have also only been seriously tested against domestic anti-government groups. I'm sure El Salvador's inclusion in the game is the product of one person taking the time to do it, and nothing more.

And one more thing, how can you be 100% sure that everything your doing is historically accurate? As your doing things from various information sources and you weren't historically present?

How can anyone be sure of anything with that argument? I think you just like being contradictory.

[Skirmisher]

Ya I think it's for the sake of argument.

Your last answer at the bottom there was kinda lame though, dont you think?

Why don't you just accept vietnam the way the game has it setup? Why do you bother changing it?

Your OOB's are just your perception of how they should be thats all.

[thatguy96]

Skirmisher said:
Your last answer at the bottom there was kinda lame though, dont you think?

Why don't you just accept vietnam the way the game has it setup? Why do you bother changing it?

Your OOB's are just your perception of how they should be thats all.

Your argument is basically one that suggests a fundamental flaw with secondary history, since most secondary historians were not historically present at the events, or all of the events they describe. If we take accuracy in its purest definition, as being free of error, then yes, my work cannot be considered accurate. I would agree that most secondary historical work is colored by the perceptions of the authors.

So, with all that, how can you be sure of anything? I say the scratch built OOBs are historically accurate according to my sources, when compared to that Green OOB. That was it. I can safely say that in no way, does the Green OOB historically represent Mexico or Venezuela.

You brought up the Vietnam pack. In the cases of modified OOBs, then it is not so much my interpretation of history in this case as what I deem to be important for inclusion and representation. You'll notice that many design decisions in the stock game revolve around conscious decisions and compromises for the sake of gameplay and the size of the standard OOB, that are not necessarily historically accurate. For instance, what I did was only made possible by splitting the existing two US OOBs into five US OOBs. You'll also notice that many of additions and edits friendly to the existing OOB have been added in the last two patches to the existing US OOBs.

I would challenge you to tell me what your point is in challenging the validity of my arguments. It would seem you have no vested interest in the outcome regardless. That attitude seems to border on trolling.

[Skirmisher]

You made one good point. Decisions are made based on gameplay. Thats really what its all about.


In any case good day, and god bless.
As far as trolling, I'm making some points you just don't like them, thats all.